Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,363,738 times
Reputation: 40731
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
Lorann, we've already determined that Bush nor his administration lied to get us into Iraq, unless you have some evidence that the rest of us don't have. Please provide it and we'll reconsider.
"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people
now in custody reveal that
Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
And don't even waste our time with some lame excuse of bad intel, he had no call to state it as fact in a State of the Union address unless it had been absolutely confirmed to be fact.
I imagine the Johns Hopkins report is being disputed, I bet it made a few people **** their pants.
We don't need to argue over lies or no lies. David Kay was clear that Iraq held no WMD threat, and that was 1998. Anyone, after that who claimed they did, was clearly lying.
Those who refuse to believe that probably still put their teeth under their pillow.
I have to commend corner guy, he stated the case accurately and succintly for reaction to the invasion of the second most holy Muslim nation by a Christian army.
Remember when Rumsfeldt was talking about useing a few thousand green berets to toss Hussein and democracy would rise from the rose petals. Sheer hubris, Sheer ignorance.
"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people
now in custody reveal that
Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."
State of the Union Address – 1/28/2003
And don't even waste our time with some lame excuse of bad intel, he had no call to state it as fact in a State of the Union address unless it had been absolutely confirmed to be fact.
What was a lie about this one? The intelligence sources, secret communications and statements DID reveal such. Saddam DID protect terrorists and was believed at the time to have helped Zarqawi get patched up from his activities in Afghanistan.
I guess you would expect him to bring a detainee into the Capital and make him make these statement in front of the World?
O' Reilly said Zarqawi did under go operations at an Iraqi hospital continuing to check on this I am
"other sources claim there is no proof that zarqawi was in iraq prior to the u.s. invasion. some rightwing sources say he was treated for a leg wound in an iraq hospital run by uday hussein. there is no proof that it ever happend or that uday ran any hospital. these souces cant even agree on what treatment he received, with some claiming his leg was amputated, which never happened."
Another, "Senate Intelligence Committee report found that Saddam's regime "did not have a relationship with, harbor, or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi.
Some more info; "there is some truth to the fact that Zarqawi was indeed in Iraq. The problem is that apparently either the Iraq intelligence was not aware of it or, actually, there are some indications that they were aware of the presence of Zarqawi there. They tried to track him down. They even created a special force to track him down, but they were unable to do so, even if they tried.
There are some internal documents that have been uncovered by U.S. forces that show that they tried and that Zarqawi, anyways, left after a few weeks, left Baghdad, and went to the northern part of the country where pretty much the central Iraqi government -- Saddam had no control and no power to have [unintelligible] valuable intelligence."
Last edited by greatbasinguide; 03-29-2007 at 09:38 PM..
What was a lie about this one? The intelligence sources, secret communications and statements DID reveal such. Saddam DID protect terrorists and was believed at the time to have helped Zarqawi get patched up from his activities in Afghanistan.
I guess you would expect him to bring a detainee into the Capital and make him make these statement in front of the World?
For one, we've never made plans to establish a permanent occupying force.
Please supply supporting quotes from White House sources to corroborate your claim.
The New York Times and The Guardian both reported in April 2003 Bush administration officials as stating 4 long-term military bases were planned for Iraq.
In May, 2005, the Washington Post had an interesting report on the actual construction of those same "enduring bases".
Neither did we kill thousands, who weren't trying to kill us.
I'd love to see the evidence for that premise. We all know that the US military, for all its technology, has not yet perfected a bomb or bullet which only strikes those bearing arms.
Quote:
We are offering to allow them to determine their own destinies without having to succumb to the desires of a murderous dictator
Let's be clear. Saddam Hussein was a murderous tyrant who ruled by force, but it is apparent many Iraqis don't feel that having their destinies determined according to the mandates of an armed occupying power whose actions have fomented a sectarian civil war is much of an improvement.
An armed occupier whose actions, directly and indirectly, have caused death, destruction, and mayhem can hardly expect to be welcomed with open arms by any society.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,363,738 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaznjohn
What was a lie about this one? The intelligence sources, secret communications and statements DID reveal such. Saddam DID protect terrorists and was believed at the time to have helped Zarqawi get patched up from his activities in Afghanistan.
I guess you would expect him to bring a detainee into the Capital and make him make these statement in front of the World?
Well that seems quite contradictory to the later CIA reports that Saddam would not allow al Qaeda operations in Iraq.
And "believed at the time" IS NOT THE SAME as "was" regardless of what is believed in BushWorld.
And where's the evidence of the following?
“We have also discovered through intelligence
that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."
Its not just the Republicans who are to blame for this, educate yourself bout the left too and then become an liberterian! GO RON PAUL!
PaNative, didn't you know that on this heavily left-leaning forum practically everything wrong in our country is due to republicans/conservatives.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
